Dude, like, what's yr deal? Is it just out of plain ignorance that yuh don't 'get it' or difference of opinion, if the former sounds like A u m a n n 's Agreement Theorum fallacy/polylogism/deconstructionalism taking root in this user's head, left-brain-dominant cynycism rearing its ugly head, give or take as bad as right-brain-dominant naivete, as Mrk Pasio talks about, but am going to try to maintain a balance here as this user asks this.... R yuh and kely2 and the rest of these para-political outrage merchant types all working together in some data center somewhere for a culture creation program and brainwashed MKUltruh style to manufacture the consent of the governed like Rosean Bar mentioned or something out of a cryptome.org article? Like this user is SOOOOOO sick of this stupid GAME, it's TRULY depressing and sad. This JRE University clip -- and the like -- of the Twittr bytch-face on there going at it with TP while @ Jakazz watches, when these types of things happen, it's like CLOCKWORK some group then takes a screenshot for a clickbait thumbnail like they get paid to do so, for the best thumbnails they can get, and then they do the B S (how convenient initials for B.Shapyro) with the cult-ish CAPITALIZATION OF SOME WORDS LIKE ADJECTIVES LIKE DESTROYED...ANNIHILATES/ED....TRIGGERS...EDUCATES....blah blah blah the title of their video and then brigadiers come out the woodwork to troll and engage in a '2 or 7 or 15 -- whatever it was -- minute hate'. These hyper-reality tribalist milkers have GOT to STOP this. It's NOT HEALTHY! FOR ANYONE except the common oppressor dynastic families that have declared war on humanity itself many years ago! This false left-right paradigm, don't get mself started....too late! Look up R o b e r t H i g g s' quote on this, or J e f f B e r w i c k's or R o n a l d R e a g a n's quote on it. HISTORY LESSON: REAL 'conservatives' are libertarians which the logical conclusion of are anarchists. Lez all define terms first, before any such debate/presentation/confrontation/etc., terms MUST be specified, because as S a r e k of V u l c a n in ST4:TVH remarked, it is difficult to answer when one does not understand the question! So many 'debates' (not even REAL debates, but those can go to pot quickly too and seem to be a losing concept nowadays, eye question the efficacy of them, in such a format at least, they end up 'internet bloodsports') fall prey to this and the competitors/opponents end up talking over and through the other on different wavelengths not thinking the other 'gets it'. Go into a debate thinking the other person knows something yuh don't. Whatever happened to the fact-finding and truth-seeking mission of the conversation??? To be 'conservative' and 'liberal' is not to be an oxymoron, in the grand scheme of things. Today in the 'west-west'/'merica mainly, this is becoming increasingly a modern concept that these two philosophies are separate and in opposition to each other. They are not. This user also despises 'labels', such as these, to identify with and identify others as. What the fuhk is a 'liberal' or a 'conservative'??? THESE.ARE.ACTION.PROCESS.DESCRIPTORS!!! NOT NOUNS!!! THEY ARE ADJECTIVES!!! As nouns they are to be outreaching and to get across the idea as a matter of fact that one OUGHT to help someone while the other is to maintain tradition/traditional roles and actions and keep what one has to parcel out later. What if one's society has a tradition of helping people, or of freedom??? Who says conservatives have to be pro-wall or liberals have to help some foreign power (Izzyhel, Sowdi, Eyeran, Rushya, Chynuh, UN, Antarctic breakaway, etc.)??? One individual may be faced with a choice of going with what would be in-line with a conservative action OR a liberal action to a conundrum. To make the action in-line with the liberal philosophy on one conundrum and yet not with another is not to make one a libtard or a cuhntservative, etc., etc.. More recently 'liberal' has been hijacked by progressives/corporatists, regressive in-nature and very social justice-y, in that the courts do not work or care to allow them to do their job even if they believe in them and that public name-and-shaming and harassment lead to a better life if the 'other' is 'purged' or 'reformed' through social- or genetic-engineering to be in-line with some agenda, some ulterior criteria, itinerary of beliefs, of action-process-steps to take when faced with certain conundrums in a categorized format. 'Classical liberalism' is what 'true' liberalism is, or closer to it than the other forms, in that it is all about the 'ought' and maintaining a doctrine and liberalism (normal) today is about achieving a certain form of government, whereas libertarians are all about the metaphysical principles the other two forms are lacking. 'Classical liberal' thinkers/philosophers/etc., come in a small variety of flavors, some would be libertarians or anarchists today if they were around, but these words or interpretations either did not exist in the lexicon of their culture back then OR they were scared of getting punished by the monarchies they lived under and kept quiet about certain topics and merely dogwhistled for the State as a necessity for safety, because anything else would've been more outright heresy against doctrine and king at the time. PLEASE look up E s o the Free's/E s o t e r i c E n t i t y's video on the subject of liberalism, classical liberalism, and libertarianism for reference. Today's liberals (or liberal-minded individuals, more like) seem to not realize that last part or ignore it and continue to bang their heads against the proverbial wall, yet so-called 'conservatives' (conservative-minded individuals more like, eye hate labels). This user would like to posit the following: It all comes down to distributism and while there is scarcity in this world, in this realm called 'existence', any and ALL forms of distributism DO.NOT.WORK. PERIOD. As H e n r y D a v i d T h o r e a u said it greatly, government is at best an expedient and some governments are usually and all governments are always INexpedient. The premise is that the private sector of anarchy does not provide resources wanted or needed for ALL life on Earth and that some charity should take place to fill the gap. But the thing is...if it's NOT voluntary...it's THEFT! Where else is the resource/land/currency coming from??? Private property is essential for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the antithesis of the Latin translation of 's i n'!!! How can one be robbed, rayped, or mrdered if they do not own themself or have something to be stolen??? Communism, by definition, is Saytanik and is really an economic theory and not a political one, which is why it fails in politics. Poli-TICKS. Yet, here's muh beehf.... Muh three P's...learn 'em kids! Now that the (P1) 'philosophies' are covered...on to the 'paradigm' (P2). Some lazy people too bored and tired to do things the hard way like to use words like 'leftist' or 'right-winger' as labels to identify people they would rather hang out with or avoid or even hurt. What are these? They do not exist. (Flawed) Human beings exist. Some use a 'political spectrum' to plot on a chart where one may fall and reside to get a better understanding of whether or not they should like a person. To be 'leftist' is to be off the Y-axis to the 'left' because in ancient times, chambers of commerce and politics and justice would see many an outreaching or charitable person who would wish to interfere in the lives of others, for better or worse, on the left side of the chambers and those who would prefer minding their own dang business and keeping their money would sit on the right side of the room. To be 'leftist' to be value a 'collective', all people either of a group of some category, such as race/ethnicity and the like, and their Rights OVER the inherent Rights of an individual in contracts. Essentially, through FORCE a group of white people can kick out a black person for living in the region known as the Deep South or a black majority in Africa can expropriate the land of a white farmer because 'THEY' 'decided' against that individual's freedom and will in a vote, say. Look up L y s a n d e r S p o o n e r quotes sometime. Thank this user later. It's late and am tired, not linking shyt now. To be 'right-winged' is to be off the Y-axis to the RIGHT of the spectrum's dividing line, to believe that the good of the few, or the one, outweighs (such a hurtful-sounding term) the good of the many. Essentially, if a laser was pointed at a Martian colony and one supervillain 'Architect' -- like from the Matrix -- gave an individual the choice of saving one life, from certain death, or saving the colony, that one does not know if the latter is feasibly worth the time and effort as the individual in-distress is, because that is a more immediate concern and easily saveable, a la an episode of B a y w a t c h where they explain lifeguards should use a victim being saved as a shield against a pier's pillar if being thrown by the waters into one and to save the closer/easier victim of multiple ones FIRST because to focus on the further out group already drowning puts the closer, first victim at a higher risk and then one may have not saved EITHER victim, whereas at least ONE will be and the other can be worked on later and will need attentive care anyways. The proverbial colony, in this example could've been evacuated or have a defense the individual doesn't know about or the villain could be bluffing, but the individual in-distress is in IMMEDIATE danger and as Capt. J-LP from an episode or two of ST:TNG said, one feels like they've been locked in a room and told to shoot someone behind a curtain and that the Capt. needs some kind of moral, reasonable justification for doing such a thing. The ends, in essence, DO NOT justify the means. ....